We, the said commissioners, having been sworn impartially to examine
and decide the said question according to such evidence as should
respectively be laid before us on the part of the British Government and
of the United States, respectively, appointed and authorized to manage
the business on behalf of the respective Governments, have decided,
and hereby do decide, the river hereinafter particularly described and
mentioned to be the river truly intended under the name of the river St.
Croix in the said treaty of peace, and forming a part of the boundary
therein described; that is to say, the mouth of the said river is in
Passamaquoddy Bay at a point of land called Joes Point, about 1 mile
northward from the northern part of St. Andrews Island, and in the
latitude of 45° 5' and 5" north, and in the longitude of 67° 12' and 30"
west from the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, in Great Britain, and 3°
54' and 15" east from Harvard College, in the University of Cambridge,
in the State of Massachusetts; and the course of the said river up from
its said mouth is northerly to a point of land called the Devils Head;
then, turning the said point, is westerly to where it divides into
two streams, the one coming from the westward and the other from the
northward, having the Indian name of Cheputnatecook, or Chebuitcook, as
the same may be variously spelt; then up the said stream so coming from
the northward to its source, which is at a stake near a yellow-birch
tree hooped with iron and marked S.T. and J.H., 1797, by Samuel Titcomb
and John Harris, the surveyors employed to survey the above-mentioned
stream coming from the northward.
_Note III_.
[Article V of the treaty of Ghent, 1814.]
Whereas neither that point of the highlands lying due north from the
source of the river St. Croix, and designated in the former treaty of
peace between the two powers as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, nor
the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River has yet been ascertained;
and whereas that part of the boundary line between the dominions of the
two powers which extends from the source of the river St. Croix directly
north to the above-mentioned northwest angle of Nova Scotia; thence
along the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves
into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic
Ocean, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River; thence down
along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north
latitude; thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes
the river Iroquois, or Cataraquy, has not yet been surveyed, it is
agreed that for these several purposes two commissioners shall be
appointed, sworn, and authorized to act exactly in the manner directed
with respect to those mentioned in the next preceding article, unless
otherwise specified in the present article. The said commissioners shall
meet at St. Andrews, in the Province of New Brunswick, and shall have
power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall think fit.
The said commissioners shall have power to ascertain and determine the
points above mentioned in conformity with the provisions of the said
treaty of peace of 1783, and shall cause the boundary aforesaid, from
the source of the river St. Croix to the river Iroquois, or Cataraquy,
to be surveyed and marked according to the said provisions. The said
commissioners shall make a map of the said boundary, and annex to it a
declaration under their hands and seals certifying it to be the true map
of the said boundary, and particularizing the latitude and longitude
of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, of the northwesternmost head of
Connecticut River, and of such other points of the said boundary as
they may deem proper; and both parties agree to consider such map and
declaration as finally and conclusively fixing the said boundary. And in
the event of the said two commissioners differing, or both or either of
them refusing, declining, or willfully omitting to act, such reports,
declarations, or statements shall be made by them or either of them, and
such reference to a friendly sovereign or state shall be made in all
respects as in the latter part of the fourth article is contained, and
in as full a manner as if the same was herein repeated.
_Note IV_.
The point originally chosen by the commissioners in 1798 as the source
of the St. Croix was to all appearance the act of an umpire who wished
to reconcile two contending claims by giving to each party about half
the matter in dispute. No one who compares Mitchell's map with that of
Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge can fail to recognize in the St.
Croix of the former the Magaguadavic of the latter. That this was the
St. Croix intended by the framers of the treaty of 1783 was maintained,
and, it may be safely asserted, proved on the American side. On the
other hand, it was ascertained that the river called St. Croix by De
Monts was the Schoodiac; and the agent of Great Britain insisted that
the letter of the instrument was to be received as the only evidence, no
matter what might have been the intentions of the framers. The American
argument rested on the equity of the case, the British on the strict
legal interpretation of the document. The commissioners were divided in
opinion, each espousing the cause of his country. In this position of
things the umpire provided for in the treaty of 1794 was chosen, and
in the United States it has always been believed unfortunately for her
pretensions. A lawyer of eminence, who had reached the seat of a judge,
first of a State court and then of a tribunal of the General Government,
he prided himself on his freedom from the influence of feeling in his
decisions. As commissioner for the settlement of the boundary between
the States of New York and Vermont, he had offended the former, of which
he was a native, by admitting the claim of the latter in its full
extent, and it was believed that he would rather encounter the odium of
his fellow-citizens than run the risk of being charged with partiality
toward them. Colonel Barclay, the British commissioner, who concurred
in choosing him as umpire, had been his schoolfellow and youthful
associate, and it is believed in the United States that he concurred in,
if he did not prompt, the nomination from a knowledge of this feature
of character. Had he, as is insinuated by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and
Mudge, been inclined to act with partiality toward his own country, he
had most plausible grounds for giving a verdict in her favor, and that
he did not found his decisions upon them is evidence of a determination
to be impartial, which his countrymen have said was manifested in a
leaning to the opposite side. Those who suspect him of being biased by
improper motives must either be ignorant of the circumstances of the
case or else incapable of estimating the purity of the character of
Egbert Benson. His award, however, has nothing to do with the question,
as it was never acted upon. Both parties were dissatisfied with the
conclusions at which he arrived, and in consequence a conventional
line in which both concurred was agreed upon, and the award of the
commissioners was no more than a formal act to make this convention
binding.
If, then, both Governments should think it expedient to unsettle the
vested rights which have arisen out of the award of 1798, there is a
strong and plausible ground on which the United States may claim the
Magaguadavic as their boundary, and the meridian line of its source
will throw the valley of the St. John from Woodstock to the Grand
Falls within the limits of the State of Maine. While, therefore, it
is maintained that it would violate good faith to reopen the question,
there is good reason to hope that an impartial umpire would decide it
so as to give the United States the boundary formerly claimed.
_Note V_.
The angle made by the southern boundary of the Province of Quebec with
the due north line from the source of the St. Croix first appeared in an
English dress in the commission to Governor Wilmot. This was probably
intended to be identical in its meaning with the terms in the Latin
grant to Sir William Alexander, although there is no evidence to that
effect. If, therefore, it were a false translation, the error has been
committed on the side of Great Britain, and not on that of the United
States. But it is not a false translation, as may be shown to the
satisfaction of the merest tyro in classical literature.
The words of the grant to Sir William Alexander, as quoted by Messrs.
Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, are as follows, viz:
"Omnes et singulas terras continentis ac insulas situatas et jacentes in
America intra caput seu promontorium communiter _Cap de Sable_ appellat,
jacen. prope latitudinem quadraginta trium graduum aut eo circa ab
equinoctiali linea versus septentrionem, a quo promontorio versus littus
maris tenden, ad occidentem ad stationem Sanctae Mariae navium vulgo
_Sanctmareis Bay_. Et deinceps, versus septentrionem per directam lineam
introitum sive ostium magnae illius stationis navium trajicien, quae
excurrit in terrae orientalem plagam inter regiones Suriquorum et
Etcheminorum vulgo _Suriquois_ et _Etchemines_ ad fluvium vulgo nomine
_Sanctae Crucis_ appellat. Et ad scaturiginem remotissimam sive fontem
ex occidentali parte ejusdem qui se primum predicto fluvio immiscet.
Unde per imaginariam directam lineam quae pergere per terram seu currere
versus septentrionem concipietur ad proximam navium stationem, fluvium,
vel scaturiginem in magno fluvio de Canada sese exonerantem. Et ab eo
pergendo versus orientem per maris oris littorales ejusdem fluvii de
Canada ad fluvium, stationem navium, portum, aut littus communiter
nomine de Gathepe vel Gaspee notum et appellatum."
The authentic Latin copy of the grant to Sir William Alexander, as
communicated officially by the British Government, contains no commas,
and would read as follows:
"Omnes et singulas terras continentis ac insulas situatas et jacentes in
America intra caput seu promontorium communiter Cap de Sable appellat.
Jacen. prope latitudinem quadraginta trium graduum aut eo circa ab
equinoctiali linea versus septentrionem a quo promontorio versus littus
maris tenden. ad occidentem ad stationem Sanctae Mariae navium vulgo
Sanctmareis Bay. Et deinceps versus septentrionem per directam lineam
introitum sive ostium magnae illius stationis navium trajicien. quae
excurrit in terrae orientalem plagam inter regiones Suriquorum et
Etecheminorum vulgo Suriquois et Etechemines ad fluvium vulgo nomine
Sanctae Crucis appellat. Et ad scaturiginem remotissimam sive fontem ex
occidentali parte ejusdem qui se primum predicto fluvio immiscet. Unde
per imaginariam directam lineam quae pergere per terram seu currere
versus septentrionem concipietur ad proximam navium stationem fluvium
vel scaturiginem in magno fluvio de Canada sese exonerantem. Et ab eo
pergendo versus orientem per maris oris littorales ejusdem fluvii de
Canada ad fluvium stationem navium portum aut littus communiter nomine
de Gathepe vel Gaspee notum et appellatum."
The translation of Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh is as follows:
"All and each of the lands of the continent and the islands situated
and lying in America within the headland or promontory commonly called
Cape Sable, lying near the forty-third degree of latitude from the
equinoctial line or thereabout; from which promontory stretching
westwardly toward the north by the seashore to the naval station of
St. Mary, commonly called St. Marys Bay; from thence passing toward the
north by a straight line, the entrance or mouth of that great naval
station which penetrates the interior of the eastern shore betwixt the
countries of the Suriquois and Etchemins, to the river commonly called
the St. Croix, and to the most remote source or spring of the same on
the western side which first mingles itself with the aforesaid river;
from whence, by an imaginary straight line, which may be supposed
(concipietur) to advance into the country or to run toward the north to
the nearest naval station, river, or spring discharging itself into the
great river of Canada and from thence advancing toward the east by the
gulf shores of the said river of Canada to the river, naval station,
port, or shore commonly known or called by the name of Gathepe or
Gaspe."
The only American translations which have ever been presented in
argument are as follows:
[Translation of Messrs. Gallatin and Preble, who were employed to
prepare the statement laid before the King of the Netherlands.]
"Beginning at Cape Sable, in 43° north latitude or thereabout; extending
thence westwardly along the seashore to the road commonly called St.
Marys Bay; thence toward the north by a direct line, crossing the
entrance or mouth of that great ship road which runs into the eastern
tract of land between the territories of the Souriquois and of the
Etchemins (Bay of Fundy), to the river commonly called St. Croix, and
to the most remote spring or source which from the western part thereof
first mingles itself with the river aforesaid; and from thence, by an
imaginary direct line, which may be conceived to stretch through the
land or to run toward the north, to the nearest road, river, or spring
emptying itself into the great river de Canada (river St. Lawrence); and
from thence, proceeding eastwardly along the seashores of the said river
de Canada, to the river, road, port, or shore commonly known and called
by the name of Gathepe or Gaspe."
[Translation of Mr. Bradley, the American agent under the fifth article
of the treaty of Ghent.]
"By the tenor of this our present charter we do give, grant, and convey
to the said Sir William Alexander, his heirs or assigns, all and
singular the lands of the continent and islands situated and lying in
America within the headland or promontory commonly called Cape Sable,
lying near the latitude of 43° or thereabout, from the equinoctial line
toward the north; from which promontory stretching toward the shore of
the sea to the west to the road of ships commonly called St. Marys Bay,
and then toward the north by a direct line, crossing the entrance or
mouth of that great road of ships which runs into the eastern tract of
land between the territories of the Souriquois and the Etchemins, to the
river called by the name of St. Croix, and to the most remote spring or
fountain from the western part thereof which first mingles itself with
the river aforesaid; whence, by an imaginary direct line, which may be
conceived to go through or run toward the north, to the nearest road of
ships, river, or spring emptying itself into the great river of Canada;
and from thence proceeding toward the east by the shores of the sea of
the said river of Canada to the river, road of ships, or shore commonly
known and called by the name of Gachepe or Gaspe."
But the translations of the Americans were merely for form's sake, as
the original Latin, in a copy furnished from a British public office,
was laid before the King of the Netherlands; and no fear need have been
felt that the umpire would not have been able to judge whether the
translations were true or not. It was rather to be inferred that he, in
examining a question submitted in a language foreign to him, would have
found the Latin quite as intelligible as the English. This examination,
however, is wholly superfluous.
From whatever source the negotiators of the treaty of 1783 derived their
view of the boundary, that instrument directs that it shall be a due
north line from the source of the river St. Croix. This expression is
too definite to require explanation or illustration, and it is only for
those purposes that any other instrument can be permitted to be quoted.
In the passages referred to the words "versus septentrionem" occur three
times, and in two of the instances are qualified by the context in such
manner as to leave no possible doubt as to the meaning. The first time
they occur the words of the passage are, "prope latitudinem quadraginta
trium graduum aut eo circa versus septentrionem." The free translation
into modern idiom is beyond doubt, "near the forty-third degree of north
latitude or thereabout;" and the direction toward the north must be
along a meridian line on which latitude is measured, or due north.
Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh, instead of connecting in their
translation the words "versus septentrionem" with the words "prope
latitudinem," etc., with which they stand in juxtaposition in the Latin
text which they quote, connect them with the words "ad occidentem
tendentem," which occur in the next clause of the sentence, even
according to their own punctuation. We note this as a false translation,
although it does not touch the point in dispute. They have, indeed,
attempted to use it in their argument; but even if the use they make
of it had been successful their inferences fall, because drawn from
erroneous premises.
The second clause in which the words occur is as follows: "Ad stationem
navium Sanctae Mariae vulgo St. Marys Bay, et deinceps versus
septentrionem per directam lineam introitum sive ostium magnae illius
stationis navium trajicientem," etc., "ad fluvium vulgo nomine Sanctae
Crucis appellatum." Here the line, although directed to be drawn toward
the north, is also directed to be drawn between two given points, and it
is clear that under the double direction, if they should differ from
each other, the position of the given points must govern, and the line
be traced from one of them to the other, no matter what may be their
bearings.
The last time the words occur is after the direction that the line shall
pass up the St. Croix and to the most remote western spring or fountain
of that stream, "unde per imaginariam lineam directam quae pergere per
terram seu currere versus septentrionem concipietur." Here alone can any
doubt exist as to the meaning of the terms, and that is easily solved.
The boundary pointed out in the instrument is "such as may be conceived
to go or run toward the north by (per) a direct (directam) line." Now a
direct line toward the north can be no other than a meridian line. Had
it been merely a straight line of vague northerly direction which was
meant, _rectum_, the usual expression for a mathematical straight line,
would have been used instead of _directam_. It is, moreover, to be
considered that the Romans had names both for the northeast and
northwest points of the compass, and that the expression "versus
septentrionem" in its most vague application could not possibly have
admitted of a deviation of more than two points on either hand. Had the
direction intended deviated more than that amount from the true north,
the Latin term corresponding to northeast or northwest must have been
used. Nor is this a matter of mere surmise, for in a passage immediately
following that which has been quoted the direction through the Gulf
of St. Lawrence toward Cape Breton is denoted by the term "versus
Euronotum," leaving no possibility of doubt that had the line directed
to be drawn from the source of the St. Croix been intended to have
a northwestern bearing the appropriate Latin words would have been
employed.
It is, besides, to be recollected that the instrument was drawn by a
person using habitually and thinking in a modern idiom, and that in
translating the English words due north into Latin no other possible
expression could suggest itself than the one employed. Such, then,
was the sense appropriately given to the Latin words, first in the
commission of Governor Wilmot and his successors, governors of Nova
Scotia, and subsequently in the commission of all the governors of New
Brunswick from the time that it was erected into a province until the
question was referred to the King of the Netherlands. In this reference,
although a translation was given in the American argument, it was not as
quoted by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, but was in the words which
have already been cited.
Connected with this subject, although, like it, wholly irrelevant, is
another conclusion which Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh attempt to
draw from the same grant to Sir William Alexander. That charter directs
the line "versus septentrionem" to be produced "ad proximam navium
stationem, fluvium, vel scaturiginem in magno fluvio de Canada sese
exonerantem." It can hardly be credited that, although a literal
translation of this passage is given, including the whole of the three
terms naval station, river, _or_ spring, that it is attempted to limit
the meaning to the first expression only, and to infer that as Quebec,
in their opinion, is the first naval station above Gaspe on the St.
Lawrence, the line "versus septentrionem" was intended to be drawn
toward that place, but that as "spring" is also mentioned the line
must stop at the source of the Chaudiere. Now it has been uniformly
maintained by British authorities, and most strongly in the discussion
which preceded the War of 1756, that Nova Scotia extended to the St.
Lawrence. The boundary of Sir William Alexander's grant was therefore to
be changed from a geographical line to a water course as soon as it met
with one, and the apparently useless verbiage was introduced to meet
every possible contingency. Supposing, however, that it did not extend
so far, the northwest angle of his Nova Scotia will be where the
meridian line of the St. Croix crosses the Beaver Stream running into
Lake Johnson, only a mile to the north of the point maintained by the
American claim to be such.
The map of L'Escarbot, quoted by Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh,
illustrates both this point and the second instance in which the term
"versus septentrionem" is employed. On that map, due north of the Bay
of St. Marys, a deep inlet of the Bay of Fundy is represented, and,
continuing in the same direction, a deep inlet of the St. Lawrence is
figured. The latter does not exist, but this map shows that it was
believed to exist at the time of the grant, and must be the "statio
navium" of that instrument.
This inlet of the Bay of Fundy occupies the position of the St. John,
which is almost due north by the most recent determination from St.
Marys Bay, and is so represented on their own map. That the St. John
was by mistake arising from this cause taken for the St. Croix in the
charter to Alexander is obvious from its being described as lying
between the territories of the Etchemin and Souriquois. Now Etchemin, or
canoe men, is the name given by the Micmac Indians to the race of the
Abenakis, from their skill in the management of the canoe; and this race
has always inhabited the river, whence one of their tribes is still
called St. John's Indians. The language of this tribe, although they
have lived apart for many years, is still perfectly intelligible by the
Indians of the Penobscot, and those in the service of the commission
conversed with perfect ease with the Indians of Tobique. Massachusetts,
then, was right in claiming to the St. John as the eastern limit of
the grant to Sir William Alexander, being the stream understood and
described in it under the name of St. Croix, and wholly different from
the river known to the French under that name. If, therefore, Great
Britain should insist that the question in relation to the St. Croix
shall be reopened, the United States would be able to maintain in the
very terms of the original grant to Alexander (on which the British
argument in 1797 rested) that the St. John is the St. Croix, and the
boundary will be that river to its most northwestern source, the
Asherbish, which flows into the upper end of Lake Temiscouata. Nova
Scotia will then have recovered her lost northwest angle, which can not
be found in any of the many shapes under which the British argument has
been presented, although it forms the place of beginning of what is
called a grant to the United States.
_Note VI_.
The fact that a line drawn from the source of the Kennebec to the mouth
of the Chaudiere or thereabout must be one of the boundary lines of
the grant to the Duke of York has not escaped the notice of Messrs.
Featherstonhaugh and Mudge; but they have not derived the true result
from this discovery. The Kennebec being the western limit of the grant,
the line in question bounds the territory on the southwest, while they
infer that it bounds it on the northeast. In making this inference they
appear to have forgotten that the St. Croix is the eastern boundary of
the grant. By their argument the grant to the Duke of York is blotted
wholly from the map, or, rather, becomes a mathematical line which is
absurd.
_Note VII_.
No name which has ever been applied to any part of North America is as
vague as that of Acadie. The charter to De Monts in 1604 extended from
the fortieth to the forty-sixth degree of north latitude; that is to
say, from Sandy Hook, at the mouth of the Hudson, to the peninsula of
Nova Scotia. It therefore included New York, parts of New Jersey and
Pennsylvania, and all the New England States, but excluded the disputed
territory. His settlement was at the mouth of the St. Croix, but
was speedily removed to Port Royal. The latter place was soon after
destroyed by an expedition from Virginia under Argall. Under the title
derived from this conquest it would appear probable that the celebrated
grant to Sir William Stirling was made; but when his agents attempted
to make settlements in the country they found that the French had
preoccupied it. Although the son of Alexander succeeded in conquering
the country granted to his father, and even beyond it to the Penobscot,
it was restored to France by the treaty of St. Germains in 1634, and the
Alexanders were indemnified for the loss by the Crown of England.
In the subsequent cessions to France after its occupations by the arms
of Massachusetts, and in its final cession to Great Britain by the
treaty of Utrecht in 1713, the country ceded is described as Acadie or
Nova Scotia, with its ancient bounds (_cum finibus antiquis_). The
uncertainty arising from this vague description became in 1750 a subject
of controversy between France and England, and was one of the causes
which led to the war of 1756. In this discussion both parties admitted
that the names Acadie and Nova Scotia were convertible terms. England
maintained that the territory thus named extended to the St. Lawrence;
the French, on the other hand, insisted that their Acadie had never
extended more than 10 leagues from the Bay of Fundy; while by
geographers, as quoted by the British commissioners, the name was
limited to the peninsula which forms the present Province of Nova
Scotia.[62] If Acadie had been limited to the north by the forty-sixth
degree of north latitude, as expressed in the charter of De Monts,
that parallel is to the south of Mars Hill. The British Government,
therefore, derives no title to the disputed territory from this source,
as the title of Massachusetts and of Maine as her successor is admitted
to all country south of that parallel.[63]
[Footnote 62: Report of Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, p. 8.]
[Footnote 63: It can not be seriously pretended that when by the treaty
of St. Germains, in 1632, Acadie was restored to France the intention
was to cede to her the colonies already settled in New England. Yet the
language of the British commissioners would imply that this was the case
were it not that they evidently consider the forty-sixth parallel as the
southern boundary of the grant to De Monts, whereas it is the northern.]
It is very easy to tell what country was actually settled by the French
as Acadie. Its chief town was Port Royal, now Annapolis, at the head of
the Bay of Fundy. Nearly all the settlements of the Acadians were in
that vicinity, and for the most part within the peninsula.
From these seats they were removed in 1756 by Great Britain, and to
them a remnant was permitted to return. The most western settlement of
Acadians was on the St. John River near the present site of Fredericton,
and no permanent occupation was ever made by them of country west of the
St. Croix. It is even doubtful whether the settlement near Fredericton
was a part of French Acadie, for it seems to have been formed by persons
who escaped from the general seizure and transportation of their
countrymen.
This settlement was broken up in 1783, and its inhabitants sought refuge
at Madawaska; but it can not be pretended that this forced removal of
Acadians subsequent to the treaty of 1783 was an extension of the name
of their country. The whole argument in favor of the British claim
founded on the limits of ancient Acadie therefore fails:
First. Because of the inherent vagueness of the term, on which no
settled understanding was ever had, although England held it to be
synonymous with Nova Scotia and France denied that it extended more
than 10 leagues from the Bay of Fundy.
Second. Because by its original definition in the grant to De Monts it
excludes the whole disputed territory on the one side; and
Third. Because in its practical sense, as a real settlement, it is
wholly to the east of the meridian of the St. Croix, and this excludes
the whole of the disputed territory on the other.
The portion of the territory granted to the Duke of York, and which is
now the subject of dispute, therefore can not be claimed as a part of
Acadie, as it never fell within its limits either by charter or by
occupation.
_Note VIII_.
[Extract from the award of the King of the Netherlands.]
Considering that in 1763, 1765, 1773, and 1782 it was established that
Nova Scotia should be bounded at the north as far as the western
extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs by the southern boundary of the
Province of Quebec; that this delimitation is again found with respect
to the Province of Quebec in the commission of the Governor-General of
Quebec of 1786, wherein the language of the proclamation of 1763 and of
the Quebec act of 1774 has been used, as also in the commissions of 1786
and others of subsequent dates of the governors of New Brunswick, with
respect to the last-mentioned Province, as well as in a great number
of maps anterior and posterior to the treaty of 1783; and that the
first article of the said treaty specifies by name the States whose
independence is acknowledged; but that this mention does not imply
(_implique_) the entire coincidence of the boundaries between the
two powers, as settled by the following article, with the ancient
delimitation of the British Provinces, whose preservation is not
mentioned in the treaty of 1783, and which, owing to its continual
changes and the uncertainty which continued to exist respecting it,
created from time to time differences between the provincial
authorities.
_Note IX_.
[Article IV of the convention of 1827.]
The map called Mitchell's map, by which the framers of the treaty
of 1783 are acknowledged to have regulated their joint and official
proceedings, and the Map A, which has been agreed on by the contracting
parties as a delineation of the water courses, and of the boundary lines
in reference to the said water courses, as contended for by each party,
respectively, and which has accordingly been signed by the above-named
plenipotentiaries at the same time with this convention, shall be
annexed to the statements of the contracting parties and be the only
maps that shall be considered as evidence mutually acknowledged by the
contracting parties of the topography of the country.
It shall, however, be lawful for either party to annex to its respective
first statement, for the purposes of general illustration, any of the
maps, surveys, or topographical delineations which were filed with
the commissioners under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent,
any engraved map heretofore published, and also a transcript of the
above-mentioned Map A or of a section thereof, in which transcript each
party may lay down the highlands or other features of the country as it
shall think fit, the water courses and the boundary lines as claimed
by each party remaining as laid down in the said Map A. But this
transcript, as well as all the other maps, surveys, or topographical
delineations, other than the Map A and Mitchell's map, intended to be
thus annexed by either party to the respective statements, shall be
communicated to the other party, in the same manner as aforesaid, within
nine months after the exchange of the ratifications of this convention,
and shall be subject to such objections and observations as the other
contracting party may deem it expedient to make thereto, and shall annex
to his first statement, either in the margin of such transcript, map or
maps, or otherwise.
_Note X_.
[Extract from the award of the King of the Netherlands.]
Considering that, according to the instances alleged, the term highlands
applies not only to a hilly or elevated country, but also to land which,
without being hilly, divides waters flowing in different directions, and
that thus the character, more or less hilly and elevated, of the country
through which are drawn the two lines respectively claimed at the north
and at the south of the river St. John can not form the basis of a
choice between them.
_Note XI_.
The reason of the double delineation of the Restigouche on the map of
Mitchell and several others of ancient date is obvious. A mistake was
common to them all by which the Bay of Chaleurs was laid down too
far to the north. The main branch, or Grande Fourche, of Restigouche
(Katawamkedgwick) has been reached by parties setting out from the banks
of the St. Lawrence at Metis, and was known to fall into the Bay of
Chaleurs, while the united stream had also been visited by persons
crossing the wagansis of Grand River and descending the Southwestern
Branch. The map makers could not, in consequence of the error in
latitude, make their plat meet, and therefore considered the part of
the united streams reached in the two different directions as different
bodies of water, and without authority sought an outlet for that which
they laid down as the southernmost of the two in another bay of the Gulf
of St. Lawrence. On many of the maps, however, the small stream which
modern geographers improperly call Restigouche is readily
distinguishable under the name of Chacodi.
_Note XII_.
In the argument of the British commissioners under Jay's treaty the
following points were maintained, and, being sanctioned by the decision
of the umpire, became the grounds of an award acceded to by both
Governments:
First. That the limits of Nova Scotia had been altered from the southern
bank of the St. Lawrence to the highlands described in the treaty of
peace.
Second. That if the river Schoodiac were the true St. Croix the
northwest angle of Nova Scotia could be formed by the western and
northern boundaries (the meridian line and the highlands).
Third. That the territory of Acadie, or Nova Scotia, was, the same
territory granted to Sir William Alexander.
Fourth. That the sea and Atlantic Ocean were used as convertible terms.
Fifth. That from the date of the treaty of Utrecht the boundary between
Massachusetts and Nova Scotia was that of the patent to Sir William
Alexander.
Sixth. That the Provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia belonged to and were
in possession of His Britannic Majesty in 1783, and that he had an
undoubted right to cede to the United States such part of them as he
might think fit.
Seventh. That the due north line from the source of the St. Croix must
of necessity cross the St. John.
It has since been maintained on the part of Great Britain:
First. That the limits of Nova Scotia never did extend to the St.
Lawrence.
Second. That the northwest angle of Nova Scotia was unknown in 1783.
Third. That Acadie extended south to the forty-sixth degree of north
latitude, and was not the same with Nova Scotia.
Fourth. That the sea and the Atlantic Ocean were different things.
Fifth. That the claims and rights of Massachusetts did not extend to the
western bounds of the grant to Sir William Alexander.
Sixth. That this being the case the cession of territory not included
within her limits is void.
Seventh. That it could never have been intended that the meridian line
should cross the St. John.
_Note XIII_.
It has been pretended that the grant of the fief of Madawaska in 1683
can be urged as a bar to the claim of Massachusetts. That fief, indeed,
was among the early grants of the French governors of Canada, but it is
not included in the claim which the French themselves set up. It was
therefore covered by the Massachusetts charter, because the grant had
never been acted upon. Even up to the present day this fief can hardly
be said to be settled or occupied except by the retainers of the
garrison of Fort Ingall, and from all the evidence which could be found
on the spot it appeared that no settlement had ever been made upon it
until the establishment of a posthouse some time between the date of the
treaties of 1783 and 1794. It therefore was not at the time the charter
of Massachusetts was granted (1691) "actually possessed or inhabited by
any other Christian prince or state."
An argument has also been attempted to be drawn from the limits given on
Greenleaf's map to a purchase made from the State of Massachusetts by
Watkins and Flint. This purchase is, however, by the patent extended to
the highlands, and the surveyors who laid it out crossed the Walloostook
in search of them. Here they met, at a short distance from that stream,
with waters running to the north, which they conceived to be waters of
the St. Lawrence, and they terminated their survey. The lines traced on
Greenleaf's map are therefore incorrect, either as compared with the
grant or the actual survey, and although from a want of knowledge of the
country the surveyors stopped at waters running into Lake Temiscouata
instead of the St. Lawrence, the very error shows the understanding they
had of the true design of the patent, and this transaction, so far from
being an available argument against the American claim, is an act of
possession at an early date within the limits of the disputed territory.
WASHINGTON, _April 8, 1842_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In compliance with your resolution of the 31st March, 1842, I have the
honor to submit the accompanying document and report[64] from the
Commissioner of the General Land Office.